4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Plovdiv.
5.  On 20 June 1997 the applicant and five other persons were charged with theft and questioned. The charges concerned the theft from a warehouse of 310 kg of nickel worth approximately 3,000 US dollars. The applicant was ordered not to leave his place of residence without authorisation from the Prosecutor's Office.
6.  On 20 June, 17 July and 3 September 1997 witnesses were questioned. On 29 July 1997 the investigator carried out a confrontation between the applicant and another co-accused. Between July and October 1997 he ordered a fingerprint expert report, a report on the value of the stolen objects and a psychiatric expert report. The reports were submitted in October 1997. On 24 October 1997 the proceedings were terminated with respect to one of the co-accused on grounds of his mental disease.
7.  In April and May 1998 the investigator made modifications to the charges. The applicant and the other accused persons were informed of the new charges and questioned. On 10 April 1998 another psychiatric expert report on the mental condition of the co-accused Mr M. was ordered. The report was submitted on 27 April 1998.
8.  The results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the applicant on 26 May 1998. The case file was transmitted to the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office on 29 May 1998.
9.  On 21 July 1998 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office submitted to the Plovdiv District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other persons (Mr D. and Mr G.). The prosecutor also issued a decision terminating the proceedings against the other persons involved. Mr G.'s ensuing appeal was never examined.
10.  The first hearing of the Plovdiv District Court, scheduled for 5 October 1998, was adjourned because Mr D., one of the co-accused, had not received a copy of the bill of indictment prior to the hearing.
11.  The hearing listed for 16 November 1998 was adjourned because one of the co-accused, Mr. G., had fallen ill and three witnesses had not been duly summoned.
12.  The hearing scheduled for 11 January 1999 failed to take place because the applicant's counsel had to attend another court hearing and the co-accused Mr D. had not retained a lawyer.
13.  The hearing listed for 25 February 1999 was adjourned because the co-accused Mr D. had fallen ill.
14.  A hearing was held on 30 April 1999. The court heard Mr D. and a witness. The court granted the accused persons' requests for the collection of evidence.
15.  On 30 June 1999 the court admitted expert evidence and adjourned the hearing because the one of the co-accused persons, Mr D., had been admitted to hospital.
16.  On 30 September 1999 the court heard witnesses and admitted expert evidence. Upon the request of all parties, the prosecutor and the accused persons, the court ordered a new report on the value of the stolen objects.
17.  On 15 December 1999 the court, sitting in private, adjourned the hearing listed for December 1999 because a lay judge had been busy with other matters and could not attend.
18.  The hearing listed for 22 March 2000 failed to take place because Mr D.'s counsel had not been summoned and did not appear. The court also observed that the expert report had been prepared by two experts instead of three and ordered the rectification of this deficiency.
19.  The hearing scheduled for 19 May 2000 was adjourned because of a change in the composition of the court. Pursuant to Article 257 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the examination of the case had to restart.
20.  The hearing listed for 14 September 2000 failed to take place because one of the co-accused, Mr D., did not appear. The court put him on bail and ordered that he should be brought by force for the next hearing.
21.  Mr D. did not appear at the hearings of 17 November 2000, 14 February 2001 and 4 May 2001 and they were adjourned. The court sought from the local police explanation for their failure to secure Mr D.'s attendance. On 4 May 2001 the court issued an order for Mr D.'s remand in custody. He was arrested on an unspecified date.
22.  The applicant's and Mr D.'s counsels were unable to attend the hearing of 4 October 2001 and it was adjourned.
23.  The hearing scheduled for 21 January 2001 failed to take place because Mr D. had not been brought from the Plovdiv prison.
24.  On 10 April 2002 the counsels of the accused requested that the case be remitted to the prosecution authorities for the rectification of serious procedural deficiencies which had occurred at the pre-trial stage. The court adjourned the hearing and requested additional documents from the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office.
25.  On 20 September 2002 the court held a hearing. It found that the rights of the accused persons had been adversely affected by the fact that Mr G.'s appeal against the prosecutor's decision of July 1998 partly terminating the proceedings had not been examined prior to the indictment. Accordingly, the case was remitted to the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office.
26.  On 7 July 2003 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office prepared a new bill of indictment and submitted it to the Plovdiv District Court on 8 August 2003.
27.  The hearings scheduled for 12 March and 27 September 2004 were adjourned because the victim had not been properly summoned, the applicant's counsel had withdrawn and an ex officio counsel had to be appointed by the court, and also because Mr G.'s counsel and a witness did not appear. The court imposed fines and sought information and police assistance.
28.  On 1 February 2005 the court held a hearing. It admitted expert evidence and questioned witnesses and experts. The court furthermore dismissed the request of Mr G.'s counsel to remit the case to the investigation stage because of allegedly unclear wording of the bill of indictment.
29.  The next hearing was scheduled for 9 May 2005. It did not take place because witnesses failed to appear.
30.  The hearing listed for 29 September 2005 could not take place as the applicant had not been duly summoned and did not appear.
31.  On 3 November 2005 the court heard witnesses and experts who had submitted reports. As some of the witnesses had not appeared and their testimony was considered of significant importance, the court adjourned the hearing.
32.  On 21 December 2005 the hearing was adjourned as Mr G. had fallen ill.
33.  As of 20 March 2006 the case was still pending before the Plovdiv District Court.